Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Dressel v. Ameribank

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2003No. Docket 119959Published

1ConcurrenceWeaver, J.

I concur with the majority that the filling out of standardized mortgage documents does not constitute the practice of law.

I disagree, however, with the reasoning employed by the majority in reaching this conclusion. Specifically, I seriously question the majority’s attempt to formulate a comprehensive definition of the “practice of law.” Such a definition runs contrary to prior precedent and appears to contribute little clarity or guidance to the unauthorized-practice-of-law analysis.

This Court has long held that the “practice of law” defies precise definition. “ ‘Even if possible, it is not…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Fought & Co. v. Steel Engineering & Erection, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State Bar v. CramerMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Grand Rapids Bar Ass'n v. DenkemaMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Ingham County Bar Ass'n v. Walter Neller Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Detroit Bar Ass'n v. Union Guardian Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API